What evidence do you have that God exists?

[Joshua260]

What you're really getting at is:
Does "I do believe that no God exists" equal "I don't hold the belief that a god does exist"?

The answer is that they are not equivalent.

Nope. What I'm getting at is how "I believe there is no Christian God" NOT the opposite of "I believe there is a Christian God". Could you please explain that?

 

[Munising]

Nope. What I'm getting at is how "I believe there is no Christian God" NOT the opposite of "I believe there is a Christian God". Could you please explain that?

Why are they not opposites?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Why do you deem the Bible to be a reputable source of information?

Boy you sure do have a lot of questions. If you keep asking questions forever you can never find an answer. There is always another question to ask, there is always an assumption, there is always incomplete informations, there is always miscommunication, there is always bias, there is always a reason not to believe. There is ALWAYS a reason to not believe in any positive claim. That's why skeptics have the easy way: they just keep asking questions without ever having to back up anything. And its the easy way because there will always be questions. Its the easy way because you don't have to claim anything yourself. Its the cheaters way to winning a debate: just keep asking questions.

I think there are about 1000 websites plus hundreds of books written explaining different viewpoints on the Bible's legitimacy. I have read many of these websites and I have read a variety of books and I have concluded, based on this, that the New Testament is a fairly accurate, reliable and historical source of information. It may include some embellishment, mythologization or other exaggeration but the root themes and working points seem to be accurate. The Old Testament seems to be less accurate in a historical, literal sense but that does not ruin it for me.

If you want to learn more about this, go read some websites and some books and come to your own conclusions. Or just keep asking questions without ever getting anywhere.

Why have you ruled out the possibility that there was no "first cause"?

I said that if you assume the universe had a beginning then it must have a first cause. If it wasn't caused then it wouldn't be here. Just as if I do not provide the cause to throw a ball for you to catch, then the ball does not move towards you.

If there was a first cause, upon what basis would you believe that it must still exist?

It doesn't still have to exist. It may have just been an initial condition (cause) which set it in motion.

Why does personal testimony always have to be unscientific?

I think a fairly standard definition of "scientific evidence" is that it is objective and repeatable. Personal testimony is neither of those.

What if you don't know the credibility of the people? Perhaps the people have something to gain by making up a story that a car is about to hit you. How can you know that isn't true?

That's why I listed "motive" as one of the things to consider when judging the legitimacy of personal testimony.

What people witnessed God creating the universe?

Nobody did.

Correct. If you have no evidence, then you have no evidence. I haven't yet seen any evidence that the Christian God exists - yet all my senses are wide open.


What you're providing doesn't qualify as evidence.


I didn't throw it out. You disqualified the evidence because what you provided wasn't really sufficient evidence.

How is it not? I don't understand what you want. You keep asking questions but I've lost track of what your overall purpose is.

The Bible is only evidence of the Bible. Please explain how the Bible is evidence of a supreme being. Humans are known to make up stories. How can you be sure the Bible isn't just a made up story?

When I write a scientific article about some topic involving electrons, charge flow, conductivity etc, I reference other people's written work. I use their work as evidence to build on my own conclusions. I don't go do all the research that they did just so I can get "direct" evidence. Their written evidence is good enough for a peer-reviewed article, as long as I reference it.

The Bible is the same. It is not "direct" evidence, but that doesn't mean its automatically not evidence at all!

Your definition of evidence seems to assume that you, personally, must physically be there to experience it.

 

[KWCrazy]

Boy you sure do have a lot of questions....
I don't understand what you want. You keep asking questions but I've lost track of what your overall purpose is.

He wants to prove Aristitle correct.

"A fool can ask more questions in a day than a wise man can answer in a lifetime.- Aristotle.

 

[seeking Christ]

I have yet to encounter a Christian who has sufficient evidence to believe that God exists.

Disagreed: you have yet to encounter a Christian who does NOT have sufficient evidence to believe that God exists. (Think about it)

Perhaps what you mean to say is that our Faith is not directly transferable to you? That you need at least some small speck of your own? This is fact!

I have experienced many many things that simply just can not be, unless the God of the Bible is who He says He is. While this affects ME, it would be unreasonable to expect this to be "evidence" to YOU. Instead, I am one more voice, in a cloud of witnesses, that surrounds you, declaring that God is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him ...

 

[ChristianT]

Intro:

The Bible and why it's reliable
The logic of Christianity
The source of Christianity
The adaptability of the gospel
Acts of God



The uniqueness of the Bible and why it's reliable

The Bible (holy writings of Christianity) is unique from other writings in that God didn't himself write anything in the Bible. He instructed the prophets what to say, and inspired many other books, but He allowed the personal style of the authors to be present.
Also, the fact that the 66+/- books of the Bible have 40+/- authors separated by large intervals of time at parts, yet clearly comes together with a legible, reasonable message from God is amazing. You've probably heard the watchmaker analogy in "defense" of Intelligent Design. In this case we have a true example of this analogy. It takes quite a bit of effort to claim that somehow, the odds were so in favor of this event that the compilation of the 66+ books resulted in the Bible we have now. Free of contradictions.
Mind you, I agree there are apparent contradictions- ones that seem contradictory but upon consideration aren't substantial or contradictory. For instance, numbers (especially larger ones) mentioned are rarely ever important. Due to the method of counting in the ancient times, and even with printing presses, scribal errors in numbers had high probabilities. But unless the number of golden spoons in Israel's camp after the return from Babylon determines my eternal fate, it isn't relevant to theology.
Now it is important to take into consideration the methods of choosing what was "biblical"- what should be in the Bible. In the Old Testament, Jews had standards as to whether or not prophets could be trusted. Not everybody claiming to be a prophet was trusted. They tested the prophecies and if they proved true, they'd listen to those prophets (continually expecting them to be correct, if in fact God was talking to them of course). False prophets got punishments akin to blasphemy. Jews were serious about their religion, and if you claimed God was speaking o you, and prophesied something false, you 1) lied. 2) claim God lies.
In the New Testament, the general criteria was that you had to either be an apostle, or have witnessed Jesus Christ and his resurrection. Some people question Paul's authority, however elsewhere He is mentioned as an allstle by others, and his humility in calling himself "the lowest of the apostles" shows that he didn't mind if he wasn't considered an apostle as long as he could spread the gospel of Jesus Christ. It wasn't about fame for him, but the message of Christ, Christianity. More particular criterion consist of having to be authored prior to the end of the first century, to ensure not only that the first criteria is met, but also so that we have as many accurate accounts as possible. Even though the canon of the Bible was made about 200 or 300 years after Christ (I believe, I can't remember the actual date), there are records of the early church in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. These are early Christians whose writings explained and defended Christianity. These generations were subsequent to the apostles, and were taught all that the apostles knew.




The logic of Christianity

The theology of Christianity is free from errors. This is due to the lack of real contradictions in the Bible. The theology of Christianity also resonates with the consciousness of humanity. We all have a desire for justice in some form, love, community, mercy even though that's never up to us, and truth. Christianity encourages and teaches all of these things.
In fact, Humanism in America is based on the morals and values of Christianity, whether they know this or not.
God encourages His followers through a prophet and an apostle, "come, let Us reason together" and "be ready to give an answer to anyone who ask about the hope/faith you have," respectively. God doesn't want us to be foolish or ignorant; He wants us to know truth because He is Truth incarnate. Truth leads to Christ, in other words. Note that a person who views the Bible literally as is isn't wrong. If you believe an analogy as is, you also (passively) believe the truth analogies. So if anything in the Bible that is analogy is believed as literal, this person is correct. For instance O see both sides of the debate of Genesis being literal or figurative. If it's literal, God created all things, and we fell into sin a short period of time after creation. If it's not literal, God created all things and we fell quite a bit after creation. While this can be misunderstood as a logical fallacy of shifting goalposts, Jesus said He spoke in the gospels in parable so the message would be hidden. His goal was to inspire us to seek God for understanding. I believe He may have done the same with the rest of the Bible, consistently. So I personally have no inclination either way in the debate. I merely hold what the Bible says and answer the questions of evolution as science accepts.



The source of Christianity

Evident in the name, Christ is the focus. Our religion revolves around Him and obeying Him. But it goes deeper to that. We love Him because He first loved us, and we also obey Him out of love rather than obligation or force. It must be said that His will is perfect and pleasing.
Jesus created a movement. God's interaction with man was never to create a religion or govern our lives. Ever since our first ancestors, God has made it clear that He made us to be in community with Him.
The resurrection. Christ resurrected in the flesh and walked amongst a large group and interacted with the apostles. This large group IIRC was over 500. The churches that were told this had the ability to visit these people if yet wished, to verify the claims, so that it was staged or a hallucination are week arguments. To get 500 plus people stupored enough to see a man walk among them - and it be the same man - is a pretty strong drug and I think would have killed them. While an appeal to a majority doesn't prove anything, a claim of this type is pretty hard to combat. Point: "If Christ isn't resurrected, then we are to be the most pitied people. But if He did, then Jesus Christ is who He claimed to be and made a way for us to be liberated from our sin.



The adaptability of the gospel

The gospel - which is that Jesus Christ was God incarnate as a man, who walked among us and lived a life holy and pleasing to God, and died on a cross and rose on the third day- freeing us from the fear of death and the trappings of sin - is culturally adaptable. It relies on an understanding of te Bible, but as it is relevant to all people, every culture can have it's own expression of devotion to Christ. Asians typically meet together in discreet locations because of their strict government, Americans have a freedom to go to a local church and worship God there. All Christians are devoted to evangelism and helping others. The most important commandment is love, and "a religion pleasing to God looks after widows and orphans." Christianity often promises a great future for God's people, but it's also focused on the here and now, and on people in need.




Acts of God

God does work in our world today. The Bible says that all things are held together in Christ. As He is the Creator, it follows that He is the sustainer. (If you make a car, I hope you take care of it if you plan it to run for a long while)
While He has sent messages to prophets, He also guides us in daily life. Christians pray to talk to God and discern His will in their life. This isn't done through audible voices or supernatural signs (for the most part). Usually, God gives us desires, inclinations I one thing over another, and His Spirit to dwell in Christians so that we can understand His will for our life. He gives people who are saved, new and old Christians, new desires they never had when they weren't Christians. Or thoughts they'd never imagined before. Ie. not all people want to become a pastor of any type even after becoming a Christian, but I know I'm called because I have a unique desire and the knowledge and heart necessary to follow God and help others do the same.



Thank you for your time and effort.

 

[Maximillia]

Can you prove to me that our planet is moving at 67000 miles per hour thru space?
I mean YOU personally not some guy scientist I've never heard of, he he...

No seriously, what proof would be enough for you?

 

[Munising]

I said that if you assume the universe had a beginning then it must have a first cause. If it wasn't caused then it wouldn't be here. Just as if I do not provide the cause to throw a ball for you to catch, then the ball does not move towards you.

That's a false analogy. Christians argue that God didn't have a cause. But the ball moving towards me has a cause (human throwing it). The human has a cause (parents mating). And those humans have a cause (parents mating). And so on. And this is not to mention the ball has a cause (the inventors of baseball). For your analogy to work, you would have to explain what the cause of God is - and what is the cause of that cause.

I'll get to the rest of your post later.

 

[Joshua260]

Originally Posted by Joshua260

Nope. What I'm getting at is how "I believe there is no Christian God" NOT the opposite of "I believe there is a Christian God". Could you please explain that?
​

Why are they not opposites?

Well, I ask because it's a matter of semantics, and I have found that if this point of understanding is clarified up front, it helps Christians better understand your point of view.

So, between the choices of:

a) I believe there is a Christian God.
b) I believe there is no Christian God.

Can we put you down as b) You believe there is no Christian God?

 

[Munising]

Originally Posted by Joshua260

Nope. What I'm getting at is how "I believe there is no Christian God" NOT the opposite of "I believe there is a Christian God". Could you please explain that?
​

Well, I ask because it's a matter of semantics, and I have found that if this point of understanding is clarified up front, it helps Christians better understand your point of view.

So, between the choices of:

a) I believe there is a Christian God.
b) I believe there is no Christian God.

Can we put you down as b) You believe there is no Christian God?

"I believe there is no Christian God" does not necessarily equate to "I don't believe there is a Christian God".

Before today, did you hold the belief that there are 50,000 mosquitoes within a .2 mile radius of the Washington Monument? Probably not. If you didn't, does that mean you did hold the belief that there were NOT 50,000 mosquitoes within a .2 mile radius of the Washington Monument?

 

[lesliedellow]

Before today, did you hold the belief that there are 50,000 mosquitoes within a .2 mile radius of the Washington Monument? Probably not. If you didn't, does that mean you did hold the belief that there were NOT 50,000 mosquitoes within a .2 mile radius of the Washington Monument?

Yes, it means exactly that. If anybody had asked my opinion on the subject, I would have had no difficulty acquainting them with my disbelief.

In my experience atheists claim to be soft atheists, and then go on to display in no uncertain terms their hard atheism. The reason? They want to claim that they have no beliefs to defend.

 

[Joshua260]

Originally Posted by Joshua260

Nope. What I'm getting at is how "I believe there is no Christian God" NOT the opposite of "I believe there is a Christian God". Could you please explain that?
​

Originally Posted by Munising

Why are they not opposites?
​

Well, I ask because it's a matter of semantics, and I have found that if this point of understanding is clarified up front, it helps Christians better understand your point of view.

So, between the choices of:

a) I believe there is a Christian God.
b) I believe there is no Christian God.

Can we put you down as b) You believe there is no Christian God?

"I believe there is no Christian God" does not necessarily equate to "I don't believe there is a Christian God".

Goodness! Why did you answer a question I DIDN'T ask??

I'm trying to better understand you so that I can address some of your concerns. You just inferred earlier that the above two statements ARE opposite. So again, can we put you down as that you b) believe there is no Christian God? It would seem to me from our exchange on this so far that it should be a straight forward answer.

 

[Munising]

Yes, it means exactly that. If anybody had asked my opinion on the subject, I would have had no difficulty acquainting them with my disbelief.

In my experience atheists claim to be soft atheists, and then go on to display in no uncertain terms their hard atheism. The reason? They want to claim that they have no beliefs to defend.

Strong atheism would be characterized as gnostic atheism, while most atheists would be characterized as agnostic atheists.

Most Christians are agnostic Christians, as they are not certain of the existence of their god.

All legitimate Christians are atheists when it comes to all gods other than the Christian god.

For more on atheist vs. agnostic, go to Atheist vs. agnostic - Iron Chariots Wiki

 

[Munising]

Originally Posted by Joshua260

Nope. What I'm getting at is how "I believe there is no Christian God" NOT the opposite of "I believe there is a Christian God". Could you please explain that?
​

Originally Posted by Munising

Why are they not opposites?
​

Well, I ask because it's a matter of semantics, and I have found that if this point of understanding is clarified up front, it helps Christians better understand your point of view.

So, between the choices of:

a) I believe there is a Christian God.
b) I believe there is no Christian God.

Can we put you down as b) You believe there is no Christian God?



Goodness! Why did you answer a question I DIDN'T ask??

I'm trying to better understand you so that I can address some of your concerns. You just inferred earlier that the above two statements ARE opposite. So again, can we put you down as that you b) believe there is no Christian God? It would seem to me from our exchange on this so far that it should be a straight forward answer.

Do I believe there is no Christian God? If that is always a byproduct of not holding the belief that there is a Christian God, then the answer is YES.

 

[lesliedellow]

Strong atheism would be characterized as gnostic atheism, while most atheists would be characterized as agnostic atheists.

The new atheists are to a man gnostic atheists, even though they like to claim they are not. They are being just plain dishonest when they try to lay claim to the agnostic label on the grounds that they allow a 0.00000000000000000001% chance God exists. It is as close to 100% as makes no difference.

All legitimate Christians are atheists when it comes to all gods other than the Christian god.

To be a theist you have to believe in one or more gods. That somebody doesn't believe in other gods is irrelevant.

 

[Joshua260]

Do I believe there is no Christian God? If that is always a byproduct of not holding the belief that there is a Christian God, then the answer is YES.

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Dear Munising,[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Great. Now that you have finally admitted (rather begrudgingly) that you “BELIEVE there is no Christian god” (even though you cannot possibly KNOW such a thing for absolutely sure), maybe now you will begin to understand why we think it is reasonable for we Christians to state that we “believe there IS a Christian god” (even though we cannot possibly KNOW such a thing for absolutely sure). See the dictionary.com definition below of “BELIEVE”.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]be·lieve[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]to[/FONT][FONT=&quot] have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Now that we’ve cleared that up, you can see why we use the evidence we have been presenting to you to explain why we believe as we do. And here is the critical part (as you well know)…evidence does NOT have to be something that PROVES something beyond ALL doubt, but it can be something that leads one to BELIEVE something else beyond a REASONABLE doubt. See the dictionary.com definition below of “EVIDENCE”.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]ev·i·dence[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. that [/FONT][FONT=&quot]which[/FONT][FONT=&quot] tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Normally, I would proceed from here to explain how faith makes up for any residual doubt Christians may have, but I don’t want to detract from the point of this exchange. Both Christians AND Atheists use the evidence we have (or lack of it) to decide what we believe…and we BOTH have beliefs![/FONT]

 

[Munising]

The new atheists are to a man gnostic atheists, even though they like to claim they are not. They are being just plain dishonest when they try to lay claim to the agnostic label on the grounds that they allow a 0.00000000000000000001% chance God exists. It is as close to 100% as makes no difference.

A agnostic atheist allows for a 100% chance for a God to exist. He/she simply evaluates the available evidence and concludes that it is not sufficient to believe that a god exists. If sufficient evidence were brought forward, an atheist would become a theist.

To be a theist you have to believe in one or more gods. That somebody doesn't believe in other gods is irrelevant.

Correct.

 

[Munising]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Dear Munising,[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Great. Now that you have finally admitted (rather begrudgingly) that you “BELIEVE there is no Christian god” (even though you cannot possibly KNOW such a thing for absolutely sure), maybe now you will begin to understand why we think it is reasonable for we Christians to state that we “believe there IS a Christian god” (even though we cannot possibly KNOW such a thing for absolutely sure). See the dictionary.com definition below of “BELIEVE”.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]be·lieve[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]to[/FONT][FONT=&quot] have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Now that we’ve cleared that up, you can see why we use the evidence we have been presenting to you to explain why we believe as we do. And here is the critical part (as you well know)…evidence does NOT have to be something that PROVES something beyond ALL doubt, but it can be something that leads one to BELIEVE something else beyond a REASONABLE doubt. See the dictionary.com definition below of “EVIDENCE”.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]ev·i·dence[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. that [/FONT][FONT=&quot]which[/FONT][FONT=&quot] tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Normally, I would proceed from here to explain how faith makes up for any residual doubt Christians may have, but I don’t want to detract from the point of this exchange. Both Christians AND Atheists use the evidence we have (or lack of it) to decide what we believe…and we BOTH have beliefs![/FONT]

If precisely the same evidence is available to all humans, then why do some people believe the Christian God exists and some don't?

 

[lesliedellow]

A agnostic atheist allows for a 100% chance for a God to exist. He/she simply evaluates the available evidence and concludes that it is not sufficient to believe that a god exists. If sufficient evidence were brought forward, an atheist would become a theist.

Perpaps a statistics course would come in handy. A probability of one means, by definition, that something must be true. So if atheists think there is a 100% chance of God existing, they are even more certain of that fact than the average theist.

All of the new atheists I have encountered claim to have an open mind, but if you try to pin them down you soon discover that nothing would convince them. They have an a priori presupposition that everything must have a natural explanation, and that directly implies that nothing can point to the existence of God. If they are otherwise stumped for an explanation they will come out with something like, "We might not understand it at the moment, but science will explain it some day. There is no reason to think any sky fairy did it."

Their faith in the omnicompetence of science is at least as great as any theist's faith in God.

 

[Joshua260]

If precisely the same evidence is available to all humans, then why do some people believe the Christian God exists and some don't?

Well, if you're referring to the evidence to support your belief that there is no Christian god, I can't for the life of me think of any!

But if you're referring to the kind of evidence that Christians have been presenting to you to show that God exists, maybe some refuse to believe because they think there were a lot of conspiracies all over the Roman empire to destroy and/or alter possibly hundreds of copies of the gospels(whew!...quite an orchestrated operation now that I think of it!), or some people believe that several of the apostles martyred themselves even when they knew that Jesus really didn't resurrect (they knew it was a lie, but died for it anyway), or they believe that all of the extra biblical references to Jesus and the resurrection were made up, maybe some people raise the level of proof to "beyond all doubt" as opposed to "beyond reasonable doubt"...good grief! I can't count all of the reasons people have come up with to try to explain away Christianity. Oh, I almost forgot... maybe some people don't want it to be true also.